This disposable adjustable paper cap is designed to reconcile the often opposing goals of comfort and safety in cap construction. While many other adjustable paper caps have been designed, those known designs tend to either emphasize safety with a resulting loss of comfort, or emphasize comfort while compromising as to safety. Today, paper caps are widely used by individuals concerned with food preparation and employed in industry to provide protection for themselves as well as consumers. Regulations often necessitate the wearing of some type of cap throughout the course of the work day.
Paper caps ideally should effectively cover a maximum amount of hair to aid in compliance with health and occupational safety regulations. Yet, paper caps should also be comfortable to allow the wearer to not feel inconvenienced in having to wear a cap while working. This comfortable fit should allow current "full-bodied" hair styles to have a snug fit instead of a loose uncomfortable one. Known examples of cap construction of the type to which this invention is directed are illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 2,669,725 issued to O. P. Haegele on Feb. 23, 1954 and U.S. Pat. No. 3,390,405 issued to W. I. Gruber on July 2, 1968. These patents, although exemplary of prior cap constructions of this type, do not disclose caps which possess the advantages and improved functioning of the cap construction disclosed herein. The Haegele patent discloses a cap wherein the crown is secured to the outer panel walls and those panels have longitudinal marginal edge portions which are multiple folded.
Attachment of the outer panel wall restricts expansion of the cap and severely limits the volume of hair capable of being covered. Additionally, the lack of ovelapping marginal edges decreases the rigidity of the outer panel, thus distracting from its aesthetic appearance. Furthermore, the lack of rigidity is compensated by an additional web which increases the cost of production, while still not providing the rigidity desired by wearers.
In Gruber, the crown is secured to the upper longitudinal marginal edge portion of the side panels that are folded inwardly and the lower longitudinal marginal edge portion is multiple folded. While attachment to the upper marginal edge is an improvement over attachment to the outer wall as in Haegele, the problem with rigidity still exists. Based upon the prior teaching of Haegele and his additional web, Gruber also utilizes a multi-folded lower edge portion. However, instead of assuring rigidity, the added width at the cap's bottom causes the side walls to be slightly inwardly inclined as they approach the top.
Other known examples of cap construction of the type to which this invention is directed are illustrated in applicant's prior patents. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,186,446 and 4,213,206. Pat. No. 4,186,446 discloses a cap with its crown secured to the upper marginal edge portion. In seeking to provide rigidity, this patent eliminated the multifolded marginal edge portions in an attempt to equalize the widths at the cap's top and bottom which had proved troublesome in Gruber. Furthermore, this cap relied on attachment of the crown to the upper marginal edge with its outermost crown pleats directed in an upwards direction. Pat. No. 4,213,206 discloses a cap with its crown secured to the lower marginal edge, but more importantly a cap with its marginal edge portions in overlapping relationship to one another.
To provide greater rigidity, the marginal edge portions were overlapped. Additionally, the means of attachment permitted the lower marginal edge to function as part of the crown.